Think this is the right place t post this... I am developing a selection of open source game development libraries, and I am a bit unsure of which open source licence I should go with. I want people to be able to use the libraries (obviously and for this to benoted in any projects that use the libraries. I also want any modifications to be noted and mailed to the community as they happen. What I don''t want is the developer to be required to make their project open source. Closed source projects are fine, as long at the use of the library is noted. I have narrowed it down to the Lesser General Public Licence (the none-lesser version requires the develooper to be open source as well i beleive), and the Mozilla Public Licence. Any help on which licence i should go with would be appreciated Cheers Spree

Depends exactly what you mean by "benoted in any projects that use the libraries." The LGPL doesn''t have an advertising clause (as they''re called), but it does require that the source code and its license be redistributed. As far as I''m aware, the MPL does not contain any advertising clauses either, but likewise does require the license to be redistributed (but not the source code, it just must be supplied somehow, e.g., a link to website to download it from). Advertising clauses are frowned upon (they lead to bloated documentation and often difficulty in one''s own advertising), so few of the "common" licenses (if any, I haven''t checked) will contain them.

Both licenses require "any modifications to be noted". Neither license forces "any modifications to be ... mailed to the community", but they both require the source code actually used be the code referenced (for the LGPL, distributed with binaries; for the MPL, linked to or distributed with binaries).

If you do plan to use the MPL, it''s suggested that you use the 1.1 variety and that you dual license the code as GPL (so that someone distributing the source code can choose to use it under the MPL or the GPL) since the MPL has some issues making it GPL incompatible (this is what Mozilla does). By doing this you give distributers of the source code a choice between the two types of strictness in licensing (open source projects will opt to use the GPL, everyone else will choose the MPL and follow its additonal restrictions but not have to open their own source code).

...or go with the much more liberal MIT license, which is preferable if you expect closed source projects to use it.